From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Project portals — live Staging area template contains the actual, raw HTML code that is displayed at It is protected to prevent the insertion of malicious scripts or objects. Changes to the template will be displayed to visitors within one hour, but you can usually see them immediately once you clear your browser's cache.

Though template is protected, the staging area is not: anyone can propose changes and updates there (detailed instructions).

Administrators: Always make your changes to template/temp before copying them to template, to keep the two pages in sync (see current differences).

Current issues[edit]

Protected It is requested that an edit or modification be made to this protected page.
This message will disappear automatically when the request is fulfilled.

Module:Project portal identified the following issues in template:

  • Remove cr: from 100+.
  • Change de: article count from 1,806,000+ to 1,829,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change en: article count from 4,853,000+ to 4,905,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change es: article count from 1,172,000+ to 1,183,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change fr: article count from 1,614,000+ to 1,638,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change it: article count from 1,193,000+ to 1,207,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change ja: article count from 962,000+ to 972,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change pl: article count from 1,106,000+ to 1,119,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change pt: article count from 871,000+ to 878,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change ru: article count from 1,213,000+ to 1,233,000+ in top 10 ring.
  • Change zh: article count from 814,000+ to 828,000+ in top 10 ring.

This report was automatically generated based on article count data in List of Wikipedias/Table, which was last updated on 2015-06-30. Administrators: Review all changes before deploying them.

By topic:

By year:

Re: Multiple updates needed[edit]

I am going to edit template/temp per Talk:Project portals#Multiple updates needed. Please check for any errors and changes that need to be made. – Allen4names (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the section title was changed to Update project icons. – Allen4names (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, synced. Thehelpfulone 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear why the other projects aren't using <li>. And the id "otherprojects-div" is pretty silly. It's also not clear why there are all of these HTML comments about style attributes (e.g., "Use style parameter in HTML until these rules can be made to work"). The code seems messy and I'd like to see it cleaned up (and made to work, if necessary...) before being synced live. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

McBride. If you are going to use list markup you may want to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-wm-portal.css. The various logos are of different dimensions so the style sheet need to be tweaked so that the text will line up. I did not want to start this myself because of my inexperience so I left a message at Talk:Project portals (see link above) but I started after Wikivoyage launched. I hope you will be able to do a better job then I have (see my user page). Thank you. – Allen4names (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikivoyage has been officially launched since January 15, but it looks like the edit to add it to this page was reverted on February 10. Similarly, Wikidata was also removed. Is there a simple solution that would allow re-adding these, or does the entire page's CSS really need to be cleaned up as a prerequisite to making the change? I'm fairly new to the processes on meta (I'm mainly active on Wikivoyage) but would very much like to see the new projects reflected on this high-visibility page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
After a bad page move the HTML code at template/sandbox (Allen4names) can now be viewed using the Wikimedia Portal Preview gadget. Please feel free to make any edits that you feel would improve this as an example for the other project portal pages. – Allen4names (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Allen - the template in your userspace is actually for rather than Is there a corresponding template for Alternately, if the idea is to duplicate the sister project links at the bottom of the page it looks fine to me, although Wikipedia would need to be removed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I intended that page (in mainspace by the way) to be either the basis for a true sandbox portal template or the sandbox itself. The template/temp page can be used as a sandbox but you should be prepared to revert your edit(s) if things do not work out. The "Custom margins for project logos" style rules and all but the Wikipedia, Incubator, and Foundation otherprojects-items can be used and with some care the "For testing only" in the subpage only. I have been busy editting items at Wikidata so I am not likly be be of much help. Good luck. – Allen4names (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Update: See Sandbox below. – Allen4names (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything to do in this section. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and/or Wikivoyage in the other projects section[edit]

Hi all. Is there any plan to incorporate either of our two newest projects into the section at the bottom? On en we've added both, along with MediaWiki to balance things out. I haven't been keeping up to date with the status of Wikivoyage, but since Wikidata will be going live on all 'pedias by the end of the month, I figure it could be useful to include a link to it, at least. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See the section above. – Allen4names (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok. Sorry 'bout that.Face-tongue.svg — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Synced as per above. Thehelpfulone 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Galician Wikipedia ( has reached 100,000 articles. Needs update. Thanks! --Toliño Fala aquí comigo 08:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Have you updated template/temp? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Please update template/temp and I'd be happy to sync this for you. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've made the update on template/temp. Regards! --Toliño Fala aquí comigo 08:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Toliño! I compared those two pages and could not find differ difference. so I suppose this had been synced. -Mys_721tx(talk) 03:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Danny B. did it on March 15. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The temp page should be checked and updated again. I may do it later but I don't have the time to do it correctly now. – Allen4names (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 13:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC) 05:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC) 07:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please sync. with /temp. See request on my talk. As I'm not expert in this page I preferr if somebody with more experience could handle this. Thank you. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC) 08:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 09:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that that version has a 'millions' section, but the current doesn't (see below) - maybe move Geitost's to the sandbox and update the current one? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It has been requested that I put the millions section into the temp version. So now, it shall not be updated? Why? I don’t see any reason, why it hasn’t already been updated weeks ago. Why update a newer version and put it back again? I really like to know cause I don’t understand it. I could have done other things than waste hours of time and noone says why it shall not be taken then. I really don’t understand it. I don’t think that there should be done sandboxes or such things, if noone can tell, what shall be wrong with this version now. --Geitost diskusjon 16:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that the now-being version has the same order as the other newer versions, it has no other order. It just says that is has, but is hasn’t. So argumenting that the order should not be as it is means argumenting against the now-being order and also its updates. Noone ever argumented against a millions section, but only against the order which now already is in the template and on the page. I didn’t want to change the order as it is. It seems to be silly to me to argument against things that I didn’t change at all, but the things that should be changed don’t get live. I don’t understand anything here anymore. I’d really like to see any change here and not just letting things undone and not even saying why. I’ve asked for the reason, but I’m getting no answer at all. I explained very long, but no reaction. I should have let this whole thing the way it has been before. --Geitost diskusjon 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 14:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ru-WP and en-WP both have 10,000 articles more now. --Geitost diskusjon 19:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


I have created template/sandbox to allow experimental edits without interfering with update edits at template/temp. Currently this sandbox differs by listification of the language list (langlist) and other projects (2nd list), using classes to allow JavaScript to be added later to sort the langlist by the rough number of articles, and comparing two different styles for other project lists. – Allen4names (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see this ever being synced live. You're making a lot of changes for completely unclear reasons. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
At this point, if I just wanted to update the existing HTML of template to add Wikivoyage and Wikidata without making any other changes, should template/temp be reverted to match template and the new projects added, is template/sandbox the right page to update, or is some other process appropriate? Any info would be appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The sandbox subpage is not for updating the main template, if updates are needed the temp subpage should be updated first. The sandbox version uses HTML list tags whereas the main template as of yet does not. I am hoping that future updates need only change a class value instead of moving code around but I have almost no experience writing JavaScript. Is there anything that remains unclear to you McBride? – Allen4names (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


OK, I've restored template/temp to match template and then added updates to include Wikivoyage and Wikidata. I've also included MediaWiki so that there are three items in all columns - this matches w:Template:Wikipedia's sister projects, so hopefully that makes sense. Please let me know if anything else is required. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've followed the steps required to get template updated with the (new) contents of template/temp, but if anything else is required please let me know. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Synced. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

W3C found errors while checking as HTML5[edit]

W3C Markup Validation Service found 6 Errors and 26 warnings at Wikipedia when I open this website. I figure it could be resolved.--Great Brightstar (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the HTML5 spec? If so, try out changes to the raw HTML code on template/temp (the "preview html" button) and validate by direct input. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed by User:Putnik. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

add new section for Wikipedias with more than a million articles[edit]

{{editprotected}} See template/2012#Request to add a new 1 million section - Wikipedias. There are from today on (with es-WP at the least and a few days ago the ru-WP) 7 Wikipedias with more than a million articles, and one of them, the nl-WP has now more than 1.5 million articles, but isn’t listed in the Top Ten because it still has much less views per day (about 250,000) than zh-WP (about 400,000). So, following the proposal of 2010 and the discussion about this of 2012, I propose that now a new section with the 7 Wikipedias with more than a million articles should be listed, because it looks odd to list nl-WP with 1.5 million articles in a section with more than 100,000 articles, but not on top of the page. It looks like there ain’t no update of the page and big WPs like this were forgotten at all. Also sv-WP (974,213 articles and also not in the Top Ten) and pl-WP (967,547 articles) won’t need very long to reach this, so the section would get bigger from now on. Please add the new section in the template now – and despite the fact, that sv-WP and nl-WP both have more than 40 percent articles created by bots, that shouldn’t matter for this, because it looks very odd to the readers like it is now. --Geitost diskusjon 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to add this to template/temp and preview it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I can try, let’s see. :-) --Geitost diskusjon 12:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I updated the page. But I can’t see how it looks now, how can I see the result? Is there any special page for it? --Geitost diskusjon 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a tab on the top next to "Diskussion" and the edit button that says "Preview HTML"? If not, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Wikimedia Portal Preview". PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I don’t have such a button, maybe it’s only there with JavaScript? The gadgets are all only to use with this, so I can’t do that now. I’ve switched off JavaScript cause my browser makes nothing senseful with that and only produces further errors. I think the JavaScript is just too old for all the gadgets here. But at least, other things go faster without all that scripting. ;-)
I wanna add something else about the changes, perhaps you can check that, too?:
Since the first two sections for WPs with over 1 million and over 100,000 articles are now both in the size very large, I’ve set the next section for WPs over 10,000 articles the same size as the ones with over 1000 articles. Also, the section for the WPs over 10,000 articles is getting bigger and bigger. So, I hope it looks ok this way.
The bookshelves are very wide now also, but in the now-being version there’s no problem with it, if you shorten the window, so I don’t think, there will be any problem with that. Just see, how it looks like. Maybe it could be a better idea for all sections to put less of the bookshelve images to it, don’t know. The way it is up to now, it should be better this way. But that could also be changed later, if people think that it gets to wide.
I also wondered about the fact that the language names here differ from the ones at List of Wikipedias/Table, so I changed a few names the way they are named there, cause I think that they can be changed easier there and therefore should be right there, but I could be mistaken. Perhaps there’s also a list anywhere how the WPs name themselves? --Geitost diskusjon 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the gadget works only with JavaScript enabled, sorry for not clarifying that. You can just save the raw HTML as a file on your computer with the extension "html", and open it in a browser. I'm not sure about the language names and the images of bookshelves, but feel free to try anything. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I tried that way. I don’t see any of the images, when opening the local saved file in my browser, and all the text is at the left side instead of centered as here. Which also means, that the Top Ten are at the left side of the page, but not around the image that I can’t see. And then, the changed sections have all the same letter size, so I don’t see any difference between the different sizes. Assuming that these things only are due to the fact that I don’t see the result immediately but just indirect, I suppose that the page could be ok this way, but I just can’t say. So please take a look at it, and if you see images, text in the middle instead of at the left side, all languages around the puzzle ball, and if you think the size of the text in the sections is ok this way, then you can save it the way it is. I assume I can see the result tomorrow on the other page and can then see there, if anything could look even better (and perhaps think about the bookshelves or sizes once more). --Geitost diskusjon 19:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you just enable JS for the gadget and then disable it? Saving the HTML locally isn't the best way to test this kind of stuff. If you really want to try stuff, paste the HTML code in the top left box of and press "Run" at the top. Sorry for not being able to come up with a better solution right now. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I haven’t explained it right: It doesn’t matter at all, if I have JS enabled or not (and the button in „Wikimedia Portal Preview“ is already enabled), there’s never such a button at the top, so it’s better to let JS away, because it doesn’t do anything else but errors that I don’t have without it. And with or without it, there is something missing (perhaps also something else), because I can’t write or copy any text into the top left box on Perhaps I should just revert everything again. I only said I can try, but if it doesn’t go, then just let it be. --Geitost diskusjon 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This might be a silly suggestion, but if you use the Vector skin, then the Preview HTML button is hidden under the arrow button next to the search box. (You have to enable JS first, of course.) odder (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I personally think it looks great. The problems you mentioned (alignment) don't occur when I try it. There is definitely a font size difference between the text used for the first two, including "100 000+", and "10 000+", etc. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, too, and as far as I'm aware, the font size difference is intended. odder (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sure intended. If you take a look at the actual version, there are 3 different sizes:
  • langlist-large for 100,000+ and 10,000+
  • normal for 1,000+
  • langlist-tiny for 100+
If it wouldn’t be changed for 10,000+, then there would be one small, one normal and three big sizes. I thought that this would not look very well, therefore the change. Now there are also 3 sizes as before, but (also as before) not 3 sections with the same size, but instead 2 with big and 2 with normal size:
  • langlist-large for 1 mio. and 100,000+
  • normal for 10,000+ and 1,000+
  • langlist-tiny for 100+ (as it were before)
Instead, there could be a bigger size for 1 mio. than langlist-large, but I think that wouldn’t look very well and I even don’t know if there is a bigger size. So I believe it’s better that the 3rd section with 10,000+ is smaller now than before (I had no other idea for that, otherwise there have to be 3 equal sized sections or something else). --Geitost diskusjon 22:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical details aside, I Support Support a "1 000 000+" category. Seven Wikipedia editions are enough for it not to look lonely or barren. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I partially updated the portal with this edit (and this edit). However, many of the other changes appear to be wrong currently. Comparing with www.wikipedia.org_template/temp, it appears the order of various lists is inconsistent. Please adjust the lists and I'll be happy to take a look and re-sync as necessary and appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean. Perhaps you have an example where anything is or shall be wrong? --Geitost diskusjon 10:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The page is ordered by „Prim.+Sec. Speakers“, so Simple English is on the 2nd place there. I don’t think that this should be the same order for this page here. Here, the order shall be by „Views per hour“ which is at the time the order here (just for the Top Ten, the other data doesn’t come from that page at all, so the order clearly can’t be the same). --Geitost diskusjon 10:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
And the list on that page is old, it’s from March. The dates about the Wikipedias (number of articles, number of users and native language names) in the section below the search field are from List of Wikipedias/Table as of 2013-05-17, which now is a week ago already again. The number of views isn’t listed at the actual table at List of Wikipedias/Table, that is a bit older on the page (March). There may be changes in article and user number between the end of March an 17 of May, for example Spanish Wikipedia now has a lot more articles listed than in March, because in March the lists articles in that Wikipedia, weren’t counted at all (it was a bug in that WP that has been fixed between March and May). Is that, what you mean?? --Geitost diskusjon 10:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The lists below the Top Ten are ordered by their native names in the sections, the native names differ at different pages, I took some of the names from List of Wikipedias/Table, because here, they are clearly not so easy to change, so I think the names on the list of Wikipedias should be more correct. The search box below the Top Ten is sorted by pagecount (last updated 2013-05-17), so with that update date, the data is also from the lists of Wikipedias page, and I sorted it like the lists there on 17 of May (maybe it is now already another order there, it’s a week ago, but I can’t change this page here every day like the lists of Wikipedia is updated every day). I still don’t understand, what should be changed with that now or why. --Geitost diskusjon 11:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, perhaps that’s what you mean. The order of the search box. There isn’t any pagecount at the lists of Wikipedia. The search box at the time is listed by number of articles of the lists of Wikipedia page as of 17 May. So it isn’t ordered by pagecount. But should it be? Then it can’t have a date like 17 May, it then can only be ordered by pagecount as of 31 March. I had the impression that it is at the time also ordered by article count and not by pagecount. If I change that, then it will be ordered not the way it is now. If you take a look at this page, then you can see, that there you are told, that the search box is ordered by pagecount, but it isn’t. The German WP is on the 2nd place there, and it is by articles, but not by pagecount. So, the description is wrong, there should stand order by articles, because that is the order (and it’s newer and easier to order by that). --Geitost diskusjon 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I corrected the description, because it was wrong like it is sorted up to now. If you don’t want to have an order by article there, then you have to change template, cause it has also been ordered by article up to now and not by pagecount. And it would be too difficult for me to order these many languages by pagecount, cause I don’t see any list which is ordered like this, I would have to write down all pagecount numbers and order them manually (which is not the case with article count order which is easy to get from List of Wikipedias/Table). If someone wants to have such an order, then he would have to sort it himself, that’s too much work and actually, it would also mean a change of order from now on.
By the way: Does pagecount mean the number of all pages on a wiki i.e. the page number, or does it mean the number of pageviews? And why should it be ordered like this and not by article number which is much easier to update? I think I don’t understand that. The lists below also aren’t ordered into the sections by pagecount or page number, but by article number (content pages) and then in the sections by their native names. This is too confusing for me. --Geitost diskusjon 11:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - I have synched the changes creating the new 1 Million articles section from /temp. Because it seems like there were no opposes to that here and there were not really any style changes in the difference between /temp and the real page now. --MF-W 03:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove search box labels[edit]

Hi. I think the page no longer needs the search box label. It's grown considerably in size and it doesn't really add much value to the page, in my opinion. Thoughts on removing the search box label? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Without objection, removed. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

autofocus problems?[edit]

A tweet drew my attention to some odd behavior on the WP portal (and a couple of the other portals). It appears that the autofocus on the search box (which has been around for quite a while) is drawing the scroll down a ton for at least Chrome and FF (Chrome more then FF). You can see the Chrome page in [this screen shot where you actually skip the entire globe and main part of the page. This seems highly un ideal but I have not yet been able to find any recent changes that would have caused it... which is very weird because I swear this has not been happening for long. I don't visit the portal every day but I generally do every week or so at least at some point. It appears this is 'working as designed' for HTML5 and so the only fix I can think of right now is removing the auto focus but is anyone else able to figure out what I'm missing that 'changed' for this? Jamesofur (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there's some JavaScript that tries to ensure that the search field is always visible when the page loads. Consequently, if the browser window is small enough, the page will jump down in order to ensure that the search input is visible. However, the JavaScript seems to be a bit wonky and sometimes misfires, it seems. It has nothing to do with autofocus or HTML5, as far as I'm aware. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this in MediaWiki:Gadget-wm-portal.js? Is it the part near the "a.focus()"? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It may be that the JavaScript there is interfering with the HTML5 autofocus attribute. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
.focus() only happens if the browser doesn't recognize the autofocus attribute. Originally, autofocus only focused the input box, but it looks like some browsers additionally scroll the input box to the center of the viewport, even if it would've been visible anyways. I've added code to scroll back to the top in this case. Hopefully that doesn't annoy anyone. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Autonym font[edit]

Please see my proposal for enabling the new Autonym font as a fallback font here. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dashboard for detecting needed changes[edit]

I've added a new section above, "Current issues", that automatically lists any changes we need to make to this portal as a result of article counts changing or new wikis being added. The dashboard comes from Module:Project portal, which is updated automatically based on the contents of List of Wikipedias/Table.

The module parses both template and template/temp using Module:SLAXML. Because the portal is written in HTML5, the module performs some quick and dirty string replacements to turn it into more-or-less well-formed XML for the parser to digest. It'll handle minor changes to the portal's HTML code, but the Lua code will have to be updated whenever we make structural changes to the portal.

When significant issues arise (new languages, promotions, demotions), the module automatically transcludes {{Edit Protected}} onto this page so that other admins can quickly take care of them. If an issue is fixed in /temp but not yet pushed live, the issue says so.

The dashboard is also enabled at template. As other portals are migrated to the same HTML structure as this portal, they'll each get a dashboard as well. But I think just automating this portal alone will save us a fair amount of work.

Let me know what you think. What other kinds of information should we be tracking? Would you support going the full mile and generating the HTML from within Module:Project portal instead of writing it manually in /temp?

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to promote Armenian Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, Armenian Wikipedia reached 100 000 articles today, so we need to promote it on index page. I've made changes mentioned in documentation, in "staging". Please take a look, and sync it with "production". --Xelgen (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Congratulations! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

amending title of our language[edit]

Hello. I guess it is a place to discuss all wikipedia projects. I have a question to you. when you visit, main page, not wikipedia of any language, all available languages are listed there which wikipedia is available in. now, I am a native speaker of Turkmen language, I write on or on Turkmen wikipedia, I looked at main page, our language is not written in our Turkmen alphabet, can you change it? or who can change it? where I need to refer?

now, Turkmen is written: ركمن / Туркмен but, in our native language, in Turkmen, it needs to be written like this: Türkmençe please, correct it or tell me where I need to refer to. btw, ركمن / Туркмен is even not our alphabet, the first part is in persian alphabet and the second one is in russian alphabet. please, write it in Turkmen alphabet: Türkmençe

Yes check.svg Done, it seems tkwiki is only in Latin too. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

SVG with PNG fallback[edit]

bugzilla:62186. Does this only apply to WP portal, Steven (WMF)? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 Criteria[edit]

What is the current method for choosing the top 10 on this page? I looked at Top Ten Wikipedias, but it's marked historical, and mainly a discussion page, so I was hoping someone could tell me the current status (for in particular). Superm401 | Talk 22:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"The status quo is to sort the languages by page views in the Top 10 ring and by number of articles on the rest of the page." (see documentation above, also www). PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I reiterate my frustration with "collapsed by default" sections. Even power-users regularly don't notice them, so how do we expect readers and newcomers to do so?! (I had to search around for a good 10 seconds before I realized what you were pointing to).
The one on this page is particularly bad, as it can easily be mistaken for a green bottom-border, and the font is too small. Plus it has the usual problem with the [show] link that appears very similar (when visually skimming) to an [edit] link, so can be too-easily ignored by the subconscious. (I should collate the years of grumbling about this, into an essay on mwo, or something). Quiddity (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. At least the main points should be summarized above the box in an uncollapsed area, with an indication that more information is available upon expansion of the box. --Waldir (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is Dutch?[edit]

It seems NLWP is now the second largest Wikipedia by article count. It seems missing from the globe-surrounding list. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ijon: the languages around the globe are determined by views per hour according to PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Good, that makes sense. It would be good, though, to explicitly state this (as small print, figuratively and possibly literally), on that page itself. I'm not involved with maintaining this page, nor am I an admin, so I'm not boldly Fixing It. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I can not say that that assigning the 10 premium spots based on page views is fair. I understand the reason why to use this system; it is easy. But nevertheless; just look at Dutch as an example. 23 million native speakers of Dutch. And it is the 2the largest Wikipedia. English has 360 million native speakers. If you include the second language speakers some figures even say 1500 million for English.

Also Swedish (4th largest) is extremely large compared to there population of only around 9 million.

The accomplishments of some Wikipedia community's compared to there user base is nothing short of a miracle. But the can not hope to be rewarded, to shine, by getting one of the 10 places based on the number of page views if you are a small language.

This portal is nice but not really important from an operational point of view. It is not because an current Wikipedia listed here is removed from his spot users will have any trouble finding it. This portal is important to showcase the Wikipedia's to the world. I see no problem in using here an internal logic for assigning the premium spots.

Honor the language community Wikipedia's who despite there small native user base relatively speaking has done an exceptional work. And give those Wikipedia's, how obscure or exotic the also may be, one of the 10 premium spots. --Walter (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The current policy is the result of a poll back in 2008. It could very well be time to revisit this decision. Feel free to start a new, community-wide discussion on this matter. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Walter, I'd say it only seems unfair if you misinterpret what that page is about. It is a portal, hence its layout is guided by the principle of maximizing utility, i.e. allowing the visitors to get to where they want to as efficiently as possible. In that light, it's perfectly clear how making the most accessible shortcuts those of the most visited wikipedias benefits the most people visiting the portal.
In other words, you seem to assume that the page is a showcase aimed at rewarding the accomplishments of Wikipedias, but it is not. Even if it were, we'd have very unexpected results in the portal by using such a criterion (Volapük was a common example during the discussion in 2008). I strongly suggest you to take a look at the discussion from 2008 (not the poll, but the actual discussion with pros and cons of the various possible approaches, at Top Ten Wikipedias) and possibly reconsider your perspective.
Minh Nguyễn, I do agree with Asaf Bartov that the criterion should be clear in the portal. How do you feel about adding such a small print? --Waldir (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We already indicate the sorting method in HTML comments, for anyone interested enough to inspect the page's source code. You're welcome to improve the comments at /temp. But I would be against making that text visible. For starters, what language(s) should it be in? And any decent explanation will become a bit of a distraction. I view the sorting method as a political implementation detail, something that would only interest a tiny minority of the page's visitors. Perhaps we should measure major changes to the page by this simple rule of thumb: would the average visitor spend more (bad) or less (good) time on the page as a result of the change?

I would instead suggest that the article counts be removed from the top 10 or made to appear only on mouseover. Visitors can get a general sense of the article counts further down on the page and the exact counts on the respective wikis. As a happy side effect, removing the article counts would also make it much easier to maintain this portal. :^)

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Another alternative might be an unobtrusive link next to "Terms of Use" pointing to a concise, well-written "About Wikipedia" page, with a small "About" section at the bottom. I don't think it'd be such a big deal if that page were in English (and linked to translations). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a great idea, removing the counts by default. That would make it less likely that people assume the entries around the globe are there because of the article count.
I also agree that an (English, with translations) "About this page", or "About this portal" link in the bottom next to the ones already there, would be the ideal solution to the problem Asaf mentioned. This change should be fairly uncontroversial, so I assume we can move ahead with it if nobody expresses any objections. As for the first change, it might be worth opening up a separate thread to discuss specifically that suggestion, since it'd be a major change.
Even better: as a third way, aiming to solve both problems at once (misdirection about article count being the criterion, and lack of clarity that view count is the criterion) we could, instead of removing that line, replace it by the latest views/hour count. (Plus, we could display the view count in the tooltips of the entries in the 1M+ section, to make it even clearer why some of those --like Dutch-- aren't around the globe. How's that sound? --Waldir (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think it would be practical to include page view statistics anywhere on the page (other than in comments). Any statistics would have to be updated manually, because the page is nothing but static HTML, mostly for performance reasons. Even if the developers were to agree to make the page dynamic, the statistics themselves are only updated monthly. I also know of no other major website that displays the equivalent of a hit counter; we'd open ourselves up to charges of navel-gazing. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Then I'd support both removing the article counts from the globe, and adding a footer link. Where would you suggest to be the best venue to discuss the first change? --Waldir (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Possibly Wikimedia Forum, but you should advertise the discussion at all the relevant wikis' village pumps, to ensure adequate input. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Promote el: from 10,000+ up to 100,000+. (As in template/temp.) --Geraki TL 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Mys 721tx. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Please update vi.wikipedia from 100.000+ to 1.000.000+. Thanks.--Cheers! (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Show top ten based on geolocation?[edit]

Currently, the top ten spots on the portal are listed based on number of page views total, from all users around the world. Anyone know whether it would be possible to specifically display those Wikipedias that are most viewed in the location of the reader? --Yair rand (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, though it would be a major undertaking to identify bounding boxes for each language. It would have to be implemented in JavaScript because the sysadmins have long opposed making the portal a dynamic page. We'd want to hook into whatever ULS is using to come up with its top suggestions list. (However, ULS is for MediaWiki languages, not Wikipedia languages.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deprecation of bits server[edit]

The bits server is officially deprecated now, so we need to update the portal templates to switch to a different URL for the stylesheet ASAP. We can use meta instead. I've already updated the wikimedia portal template, which went smoothly. Unless anyone has any concerns, I'll update the others soon as well. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia portal updated. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Add EventLogging[edit]

For T100673, I added some stand-alone EventLogging code to m:Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp, and would like to get it reviewed and merged into m:Www.wikipedia.org_template.

Jdouglas (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mxn: could you take a look at this? Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jdouglas (WMF): needs to be rebased since the code has diverged. The diff shows many unrelated changes that essentially undo recent revisions to the template. To aid future changes and allow actual code review, the script should be maintained on a separate page without minification. I assume the original has some helpful inline comments explaining the logic? Why is this compiled from TypeScript? We don't currently use TypeScript or CoffeeScript, makes it hard to review out of the blue. –Krinkletalk 00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jdouglas (WMF): I did a partial review.
  • It replaces all important anchor links with href="javascript:;". This makes the page less accessible, obfuscates the target url from the browser status bar when users hover the url, and impairs the user's ability to Copy URL or Open in new tab. It may also break search engine index since Google is capable of evaluating basic javascript. I'd recommend to instead leave the href in tact, terminate the event with return false, and re-assign location.href from the callback as usual. You may also want to race the event against a setTimeout (e.g. 2 seconds) since a small class of HTTP errors do not propagate to Image.onerror, and just in general because networks can be flaky and/or slow (including mobile).
  • In browsers that support it, you may want to use navigator.sendBeacon. This way modern browsers aren't penalised with slow fallbacks for old browsers. This portal is the first entry for some users. Being slowed down here could have negative impact. To keep code small, the beacon call could even re-use the same callback by invoking it directly.
  • The JSON serialisation looks unsafe. It probably works for the common case, but it's incorporating many external values that aren't always free of quotes or other invalid syntax. A micro quote library (e.g. jQuery.JSON/quoteString) may be justified. E.g. var quote = JSON.stringify || function quoteString; .. push('"referer": ' + quote(document.referrer)). --–Krinkletalk 03:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)